"Modernizing" the BNSF Transcon

[SchemerBob]

OK, now this probably will never happen, but can anyone make a guess on how much it would cost to electrify the entire BNSF transcon from Chicago to Los Angeles?

[canazar]

Ok, I will bite on this...

Honestly, I would put it at somwhere between No Way In H#$# to Impossible.

Several things

1) The infastructure would be astronomical. All the yards, the sidings to cover. Getting it through cities, town, bridges and tunnels. Permits up the ying yang. I cant even imagine the cost of parts to cover 2 tracks for 3000 miles.

2) The equipment changeover. Every line that comes into the BNSF would have to have a yard, or some sorta of trackage, built to switchover head end power.

3) New engines, new repair programs, new training,a whole new slew of part numbers and bins. And the forming of one new huge department to repair and work on the electric side of it.

4) Lost reveue to construction on the line while it is being built. As it is now, Sabo (??spelling, the canyon in New Mexico) Canyon goes down to one track only for a littel ways and that gives them fits. I cant imagine the line dealing with that project. it would take years. Maybe even a decade.


I am sure there are plenty of other aspects I am missing but those are the ones off the top of my head

[edbenton]

All the issues mentioned above plus also having high enough clearance for a doublestack.

[nanaimo73]

Extending the NEC 232 miles to Boston (156 miles new electrifcation) cost $1.7 billion, not counting locomotives, but counting other things like replacement bridges.
Chicago to LA is 2200 miles.
Not every train would need to have electrics, especially to start with.

[conrailman]

Why would you want to electrify the Entire BNSF main line for Purpose? Why to save little gas? It would Big Waste of Time and Money? You are talking about 5 to 10 Billion Dollars.[2c]

[erikem]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

All the issues mentioned above plus also having high enough clearance for a doublestack.

That was pretty much te conclusion of teh Southern Calirfornia Electrification study that took place 1990-92 - biggest expense was providing clearance for the doublestacks plus above and below the wire - estimate was that was going to be half the total.

[FThunder11]

BNSF and electricity only belong in the same sentence if it has to do with a BNSF coal train bringing coal to a power plant to make electricity LOL

[daveklepper]

I disagree. I think 20 Billion to electrify the Transcon makes sense. It would make big dent in the amount of imported oil needed by the USA. It would provide a modest increase in capacity. It would reduce noise and pollution. I donh't expect the BNSF to invest all by themselves. I think the power companies should for their own interest help with the investment.

Locomotives: Dual power, the diesel is a slug for the electric under wire and the electric a slug for the diesel off wire. Either can be used separately when appropriate but can also be jumpered together.

Clearances: Raised where practical. Where not practical, center third rail with reduced voltage operation in concret roadbed track, power on only when train is present. Retractable shoes (rollers) make contact.

Right of way used for additional power line transmissions.

Right now power companies effectively burn a competitors product to make their own.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I disagree. I think 20 Billion to electrify the Transcon makes sense. It would make big dent in the amount of imported oil needed by the USA. It would provide a modest increase in capacity. It would reduce noise and pollution. I donh't expect the BNSF to invest all by themselves. I think the power companies should for their own interest help with the investment.

Locomotives: Dual power, the diesel is a slug for the electric under wire and the electric a slug for the diesel off wire. Either can be used separately when appropriate but can also be jumpered together.

Clearances: Raised where practical. Where not practical, center third rail with reduced voltage operation in concret roadbed track, power on only when train is present. Retractable shoes (rollers) make contact.

Right of way used for additional power line transmissions.

Right now power companies effectively burn a competitors product to make their own.

Well, I "Kind Of" agree. The BNSF Transcon, and the coal routes out of the Powder River Basin seem to have the train density needed to support main line electrification.

But! $20 billion is literally a 'bet the company" amount. Now I'm a gambler - I'm headed up to the dog track latter today. The First Rule is: Never, ever bet more than you can afford to loose.

If things don't work out as I calculated in a Greyhound race, I'm out, max, about $24. I can afford that. If things didn't work out as calculated on the BNSF electrification the company would be dead. They can't afford to lay out $20 billion and not get a good return on their investment. They can't "know" what things will be like 10 years out in terms of electricity costs, diesel fuel costs, etc. It would be taking quite a risk (quite a gamble.) And it's more than they could ever afford to loose. Prudent management won't take that risk.

And right now they can not borrow the money. They're not earning their cost of capital, and no lender could get reasonably get close to full value back by reposessing the electrification. The BNSF would have to generate the funds internally. They can get better bag for their buck elsewhere.

I also agree that any such new electrification will have to be a hybred system that allows trains to seamlessly switch from electric to diesel power. Dave's got a good concept. Put diesles and electrics on the same train. In electrified territory the electrics could feed juice to the diesels' traction motors. In non-electrified territory the diesels would generate power for their own motors and the electrics' motors.

The "old way" of electrifying everything seems to be way to wasteful.

It'd work and the BNSF wouldn't have to worry about how to handle trains to Phoenix, they'd just run the main line under electric power, then continue on without stopping on the Phoenix line under diesel power. But "working" and paying back the investment are two different things.

It might make sense economically, environmentally and as a way to lessen dependance on foriegn oil But the risk is too great for the BNSF to assume. The only solution I can see would be for the Federal Government (God, I hate saying this) to "insure" the BNSF against catostrophic loss. That would open up a whole can of worms. People like FM-Dave would be jumping up and down demanding that the BNSF bail out the obsolete Montana Wheat Farmers in return for the "insurance". It would become another avenue for congress folks to buy votes with pork projects they'd load on.

So, it ain't gonna' work economically or politically. Just put the diesels in run 8 and head for the west coast.

[martin.knoepfel]

Catenary makes most sense where the effects of regenerative braking are important. I.e. mountain-sections - not the whole transcontinental. It would make sense as well to go to electric traction on the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh-segment of the former PRR-mainline. And of course, commuter-railroads like the non-electrified METRA-lines or the Altamont-Express

[Anonymous]

Agree, electrifying the entire transcon not likely. The energy markets are uncertain. Who can predict what electric energy will cost in 10 years?

Now if we are talking a state-owned transcon (like the Trans-Siberian Rwy), different story. The central planning bureau would build dedicated power plants to provide power for the railroad at a fixed price.

[Anonymous]

So are you saying we'd have to have communism--and the market distortions it permits--to have a fully electrified transcon?

[solzrules]

With copper being what it is today, such a project could very well create a run on copper that would hurt the economy.

[youngengineer]

The BNSF would not do it because as any corporation they don't take risks. They down size not up size and try to get more ot of what they have. While the BNSF is double tracking what isn't double tracked on the transcon they continue to shed feeder lines and redundant mainlines. They sold the track over raton pass to the state of new mexico. Personally I can't see how just running intermodal is a good bussiness venture but hey I don't make those decisions.

I'm not sure what the purpose of Electrificaton would do. The cost in building the catanery alone would be exspensive, and than the locomotives. Not to mention the dwell time in yards to switch power out when changing from electric to non electric.

[silicon212]

Biodiesel is the wave of the future.

Besides, who WOULDN'T want to smell french fries as the units pass?

[solzrules]

I would rather the smell of hasbrowns!

Yeah, I think biodiesel could be the wave of the future. If everyone switches to biodiesel, then the price of that will skyrocket too. Maybe if only the rail and trucking industry switched to it?

[Lyon_Wonder]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SchemerBob

OK, now this probably will never happen, but can anyone make a guess on how much it would cost to electrify the entire BNSF transcon from Chicago to Los Angeles?

And Amtrak can run Acela down it too! Of course that pipe dream won't likely happen either:)

[n012944]

If something like this was too happen you would need two things, someone to help underwrite the costs, i.e. power companies, and the goverment to give some LARGE tax breaks. Without both of these, the project would be dead in the water.


Bert

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

I would rather the smell of hasbrowns!

Yeah, I think biodiesel could be the wave of the future. If everyone switches to biodiesel, then the price of that will skyrocket too. Maybe if only the rail and trucking industry switched to it?

solz, Bio has a place but it is also a food sourse for people. Mabe a thought that might be considered would be the use of our abundant coal deposits. With the assistance of atomic heat sourses from the new reactor technologies being currently developed and studied, converted coal would make a very good synthetic diesel fuel. This is not really a new idea. Adolph Hitler was one that was behind the pioneering efforts in 1942-44 and powered his war machine with it (both diesel and gasoline). Needless to say those synthetic fuel plants were both a high priority and heavly defended as a targets of both the Royal, US 8th Air Forse and Luftwaffe (respectfully) during World War II. IF this technology were developed on a true industiral scale, We (the US) could tell a few folks to keep their oil, We have our own thank you very much. By the way that kind of solution would be a very pro-railroad type solution for haulage and usage not to mention a sourse of employment to engineering and construction types. . . My [2c]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
They're not earning their cost of capital....

The composite after-tax cost-of-capital rate for railroads in 2004 was 10.1%, as calculated by the STB, based on the then-current cost-of-debt of 5.25%; a cost of common equity capital of 13.16%; and a capital structure mix comprised of 38.5% debt and 61.5% common equity. STB is currently calculating the 2005 cost of capital, but BNSF earned 10.1%. My guess for 2005 is a cost of capital of around 10.4%. BNSF is, in 2006, likely earning its cost of capital.

[Anonymous]

If any current Western mainline needs electrification, it would be the UP from Hinkle OR to Nampa ID. If indeed a modern electrification would pay dividends, this line would be it.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
They're not earning their cost of capital....

The composite after-tax cost-of-capital rate for railroads in 2004 was 10.1%, as calculated by the STB, based on the then-current cost-of-debt of 5.25%; a cost of common equity capital of 13.16%; and a capital structure mix comprised of 38.5% debt and 61.5% common equity. STB is currently calculating the 2005 cost of capital, but BNSF earned 10.1%. My guess for 2005 is a cost of capital of around 10.4%. BNSF is, in 2006, likely earning its cost of capital.

Yep, they might make it this year. First time since forever.

Booming economy, low interest rates and good management. They just might make a real buck this year.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
They're not earning their cost of capital....

The composite after-tax cost-of-capital rate for railroads in 2004 was 10.1%, as calculated by the STB, based on the then-current cost-of-debt of 5.25%; a cost of common equity capital of 13.16%; and a capital structure mix comprised of 38.5% debt and 61.5% common equity. STB is currently calculating the 2005 cost of capital, but BNSF earned 10.1%. My guess for 2005 is a cost of capital of around 10.4%. BNSF is, in 2006, likely earning its cost of capital.

Yep, they might make it this year. First time since forever.

Booming economy, low interest rates and good management. They just might make a real buck this year.

Keep talking like that one of those folks on that road might say something nice to you.

[nanaimo73]

If UP electrified the Sunset route, would that increase capacity, and lessen the amout of double tracking needed ?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

If UP electrified the Sunset route, would that increase capacity, and lessen the amout of double tracking needed ?

Probably not. All that would change would be the ultimate source of energy for moving the trains. UP would be better off spending its money to continue the double-tracking project.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

If UP electrified the Sunset route, would that increase capacity, and lessen the amout of double tracking needed ?

Probably not. All that would change would be the ultimate source of energy for moving the trains. UP would be better off spending its money to continue the double-tracking project.

Because of overload capacity which is not available in a diesel-electric locomotive, electric locomotives have more available short time horsepower.

This improves acceleration, as well as offering improved speed on grades. On the same track, an electrically-powered train operates, typically, at a higher average train speed. A rule of thumb is that electrification will improve track capacity by anywhere between 5 and 20% depending on a variety of factors including number of meets, grades, curvature, etc.

[MichaelSol]

The cost of electrifying 1500 miles of mainline today would be about $1.5 billion. Interest charges would be abut $135 million per year. The current savings in using commercial electric power sources rather than diesel fuel would be about $85 million per year assuming the mainline is rather heavily used. This also assumes insignificant regeneration. In mountain territory, these numbers would change substantially. The savings in fuel costs alone don't justify electrification at this point in time. However, maintenance savings might make enough of a difference. The motive power costs are about the same, but the electric engines last 2-3 times longer. The "real" savings kick in when the diesel-electric fleet reaches the replacement or rebuild point, 8-10 years.

[nanaimo73]

Michael, would you agree an electric has to be well designed to last 2-3 times longer, it's not guaranteed.
Some of the last mainline electric freight locomotives built were the 7 GMD GF6C for BC Rail. I believe they were worn out after 16 years.

http://www.ewetel.net/~michael.blunck/ttd/gf6c_2.html

[Murphy Siding]

MichaelSol: I'm curious where the price of $1.5 billion comes from? Compared to the post on page 1 about theNEC, this seems like a bargain.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Michael, would you agree an electric has to be well designed to last 2-3 times longer, it's not guaranteed.
Some of the last mainline electric freight locomotives built were the 7 GMD GF6C for BC Rail. I believe they were worn out after 16 years.

http://www.ewetel.net/~michael.blunck/ttd/gf6c_2.html

I doubt that they were worn out. No doubt they would need to have the electric equivilent of an overhaul. More likely, they were obsolescent technology with no ready market. The three US electric coal haulers are all using GE's, with the former Mexican locomotives for spares there would be no interest in them. And I can't think of any International Railway that would be able to use them without prohibitively expensive modification.